Cooperation: Tomasz Kamiński, University of Lodz, Poland)

Joanna Ciesielska-Klikowska University of Lodz, Poland (cooperation: Tomasz Kamiński, University of Lodz, Poland)

Multi-Level Governance in Shaping Foreign Policy - a case study of Germany

Keywords: multi-level governance, paradiplomacy, German-Chinese relations, Germany

Introduction In German political system the concept of multi-level governance means co-management of public administration bodies with other organizational structures that function in its environment, in order to regulate socio-economic processes. The expression was coined in the 1970s as a result of changes in the Federal Republic of Germany connected with: i). the adaptation of new public management and public-private partnerships; ii). the involvement of associations, interest groups and private actors in the development of policy, based on policy partnership; iii) the creation of new forms of civic involvement caused by social changes, and iv). the continuation to pursue a broad cooperation alliance between self-government at the municipal level and economic self-government institutions, in particular chambers of commerce and industry. The form of multi-level governance present in Germany has evolved over the years leading to the creation of an appealing system. The aim of this paper is to show how the concept of multi-level governance has been adapted to the specifics of German political system and what is its essence. However, the author wants to emphasize the importance of multi-level governance in the context of shaping German foreign policy, which more and more often takes into account the positions represented by various non-state actors. Here, particular emphasis will be placed on the issues of international activity of German regions, which have been cooperating with other sub-state entities for several decades. This activity will be illustrated on the example of relations with Chinese provinces. The choice of this case study is not accidental. In recent years, on account of the growth of globalization, rising international competition but also intensifying importance of cooperation between countries and regions, great value is assigned to bilateral German-Chinese cooperation. The Federal Republic of Germany and the People's Republic of China established their diplomatic relations in 1972. From that time, these relationships have developed into a great diversity, considerable density and increasing political substance. The

1 regular high-level political coordination and dynamic trade relations, investments, environmental cooperation, cultural and scientific cooperation describe these affairs. Since 2004, German-Chinese relations have been called as "Strategic Partnership in Global Responsibility", and this status was upgraded to a "Comprehensive Strategic Partnership" during the state visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping to Germany in March 2014. In 2011 Sino-German government consultations, an exclusive mechanism for the bilateral communication, was also implemented (Auswärtiges Amt, 2018). Altogether, at the intergovernmental level, there are over 80 dialogue mechanisms between specialist ministers, secretaries of state, department heads and heads of government agencies (Steinmeier, 2018). Indisputably, the driving force behind this bilateral cooperation is the economy. According to the German think tank Mercator Institute for China Studies (Merics), the Federal Republic of Germany is a country in which Chinese investments are the most intense (Wübbeke et al., 2016). Currently Germany is the crucial trading partner for China on the European continent - already in 1978, the Federal Republic was in the fourth place among global and in the first place among European trade partners for China. Today, Germany is by far the key trade partner for China in Europe. On the other hand, China is the most significant economic partner for Germany, both in Asia and around the world, because the PRC overtook the place of the United States and France and took a leading position in trade relations with Germany - in 2020 Germany and China reached a turnover of 212 billion EUR (Destatis, 2021). Yet, the intergovernmental or trade cooperation of both countries does not exhaust the field of mutual collaboration. In addition to economic issues, technological cooperation and exchange of know-how, in recent years both states have been pursuing a progressively more intensified dialogue at the level of regions and cities. Support for these initiatives is provided by both the government in Berlin and the governments of individual German Länder, which are increasingly looking for partners for interregional cooperation in Asia. The aim of this paper is to analyse how Germany cooperates with Chinese counterparts at the subnational level by answering the following questions: what is the role of regions in German federal political system and how much space they have for international activities? What is the relation between national foreign policy and external activities of German subs-state actors? What are the main goals and areas of cooperation with Chinese partners on the subnational level?

The research is based on an in-depth literature review, statistical data gleaned from two surveys - of German regions (conducted in 2017/2018)1 and cities (conducted in 2020/2021)2, and interviews with officials in selected regional authorities. A few regions refused to fill out the questionnaire, or directed the researcher to the region’s official website to find extensive information about sub-state cooperation. The researcher for this study added data gleaned from these sites to the survey dataset. Moreover, the dataset was compared with the publication presented by Goette and Gao (2018) who has conducted a similar research about the German-Chinese subnational links. The paper consists of three main parts. In the first part the role of regions in German political system as a part of the multi-level governance system is shown. In the second, the position of German regions as policy actors in international relations is briefly discussed. The final section characterises paradiplomatical relations with Chinese counterparts.

Regions in German political system Germany is a republic where federalism is regarded as a state-structure principle and a fundamental part of the political system which, according to the eternity clause, is irrevocably fixed (Detterbeck, Renzsch, Schieren, 2009). The central idea of German federalism is based on cooperation between the federal and state levels and its tradition dates back to the German Empire, following the unification of Germany 1871. This system was also continued during the time of the Weimar Republic (Sturm, 2013, p. 3-5). After 1949 and creation of the Federal Republic of Germany, more and more powers were conferred on the federal government, which in turn allowed the federal states to have a greater say in Bundesrat (that is a legislative body that represents the federated states at the national level), and to execute federal laws in their own right. The current Federal Republic consists hence of smaller autonomous units, partially sovereign member states, which in turn fulfill their own state tasks. They are united to form a superordinate whole, the federal government, whose state quality is based on the federal union of its federal states. The federal system of Germany determines the more complex structure and organization of public administration than a unitary state. Therefore the state (Bund) is divided into semi- sovereign member states (Germ. Bundesland, Pl. Bundesländer). Politically, since the German

1 Project “The role of regions in the European Union Policy towards China”, financed by the Polish National Science Centre, project number 2015/19/B/HS5/02534. 2 Project “The role of cities in the European Union’s policy towards China”, financed by the Polish National Science Centre, project number 2019/33/B/HS5/01272.

3 reunification in 1990, the Federal Republic is divided into 16 federal states, where three of them are named city-states (Stadtstaaten), or cities with Land-status: Berlin, Bremen and Hamburg; and the remaining 13 states are called area states (Flächenländer). The Länder (except for Saarland and Schleswig-Holstein as well as city-states) are further divided into administrative districts (Regierungsbezirke). This division does not occur in all federal states (the exception is Bayern), thus the level of administrative district belongs to the state administration. The districts are divided into rural districts (Landkreise) with a dual, governmental-local government character and local government (Städte/Gemeinden), having corporate status and powers of self-government. The division of competences between federal authorities and the state authorities has been precisely defined in the German law and is based on two assumptions:  the necessity for the state authorities to submit to the arrangements made by the federal level in matters reserved to it,  ensuring the influence of states on the final outline of these arrangements through participation in the Bundesrat and creating a space of a great freedom for shaping national affairs (including the self-government system), however with respect and compliance with the Basic Law and other general provisions (Plöhn, Steffani, 1994). According to the jurisprudence and prevailing view of the law, the German Länder have an original state power, are parliamentary republics and thus have state quality. Corresponding constitutional bases for Bundesländer can be found in the section "The Federation and the Länder" included in the articles 20-37 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) (Bundesgesetzblatt, 2014), that considers federalism as one of its main features. Länder, as legal institutions, have the right to conduct economic, social and cultural policies, and also maintain contacts with regions in other countries, establish their foreign representations, become members of international organizations and associations, and sign international agreements. As the Article 32 of the Basic Law states: "the Länder have the power to legislate, they may, with the consent of the Federal Government, conclude treaties with foreign states". This is an important principle that has been confirmed in the Lindau Agreement from 14 November 1957, where the German federal government and the states regulated the competences of the Länder for the conclusion of international treaties and the transformation of federally concluded treaties with other subjects of international law (Bundesdrucksache, 1992). The Lindau Agreement governed cases in which an international

4 treaty of the Federation could affect the legislative competences of the federal states, and provided that, with the permission of the federal states, the federal government would be given comprehensive contracting authority for an international treaty. This led to the assumption that the federation acted on behalf of the Länder when negotiating or signing foreign treaties, which either partly or wholly regulated the matters of their competence. In exchange for allowing the federation to act on their behalf, the Länder have secured for themselves wide-ranging rights of participation which denied the federation the right to sign such treaties without previously securing their undisputed approval (Leonardy, 1999). The intermediate medium between the federation and the states was the Permanent Treaty Commission of the Länder, which till today coordinates the cooperation via formal letters (Kovziridze, 2008, pp. 168-169). At present, beyond the area where treaties are concluded, political representatives of states are often referred to as partners, responsible for keeping up the informal relations with foreign states, below the level of formal diplomacy (Jeffery, 1999). In the Basic Law, there is nothing to prevent neglect for the rules of the federal order, as long as political contacts established by the federation in foreign relations are respected. With regard to foreign affairs concerning relations with political and/or administrative partners below the level of nation states, the German states have always considered themselves free from constitutional constraints. Their right to direct communication with foreign regions, provinces or autonomous communities, was confirmed in the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in 1992 - together with the "European Amendments" to the Basic Law passed in 1992 (Article 23, so called "Europe Article"), the states obtained then constitutionally the right to transfer their own sovereign rights to "transfrontier institutions in neighbouring regions" with the consent of the Federal Government (Article 24/1a) (Leonardy, 1999). This enabled the strong activity of the German Länder in the international arena (Nagel, 2010, p. 129; Jeffery, 2007, pp. 17-27; Hrbek, 2017, pp. 130-147). This empowerment of individual regions in the German political system influences their important role in the framework of multi-level governance. In Germany the term of multi- level governance dates back to the 1970s as a form of co-governance and is an outcome of regionalization and Europeanization processes (Scharpf, 2014, p. 80). Originally, the term was used with reference to the supranational and national levels only. However, when regional development policies were transferred from the central level to that of Länder, it became necessary to develop new coordination mechanisms for entities operating in their respective areas to use their potential to promote socio-economic progress (Giessen, Böcher,

2009, p. 211). As Balcerek-Kosiarz (2019, p. 32-33) points out, at that moment in time the German political system began to be analyzed in terms of cooperation between different entities merging to develop new values, so as to increase the competitiveness of their territories. Multi-level governance in Germany is related to two concepts which are an outcome of the legitimization crisis of state institutions and representative democracy, namely the low effectiveness of public services and representation of interests (Strumińska-Kutra, 2012, p. 17). In fact, solutions solely based on a regulatory administration providing public goods and services proved to be ineffective. It was also no longer viable to order such goods and services from private entities under the New Public Management, whereby local governments focused on the generation of profit. Under the New Public Management, local governments carried out business operations to protect their property, using different solutions provided by civil law (Lepsius, 2002, p. 313). This model is based on a non-regulatory (servicing) administration whose bodies are active local actors managing property, who adjust market solutions to public administration. On the other hand, such property should be accumulated to ensure continuous and uninterrupted fulfillment of all the needs of local community members in the event of a crisis. This attitude was inspired by the financial crisis of municipalities in the 1980s, which was due to several causes, i.e. falling returns on investment; increasing costs of administrative staff; insufficient resources provided for the implementation of tasks by municipalities; too high debt repayments; the lack of a workable policy to generate returns on investment; taxation decisions made by the state and individual Länder; limitation of public debt in connection with Maastricht criteria; high costs of German reunification (Mutius, Henneke, 1985, p. 3). The New Public Management in Germany transformed into a New Steering Model (Neues Steurungsmodell). This model was a result of the bottom-up initiative of municipalities which endeavored to alter the manner of their operations without support from the central administration (Sześciło, 2012, p. 50). The NSM was developed by the association for administrative governance (Die kommunale Gemeinschaftstelle für Verwaltungsmanagement). It included following characteristics:  public policy creation performed separately from current federal policy;  management contracts introduced between higher managers and organizational units in their charge;  decentralized management of administrative resources;  establishing special units to steer and monitor administrative activities.

This new direction of transformations in the field of public governance laid the foundations for participatory models of exercising public tasks, which can be implemented within multi- level governance. The source of multi-level governance is therefore the change in the management style of public administration and the departure from the model of a bureaucratic government in favour of a governance model based on different means of coordination using markets and networks (Bevir, 2011, p. 1). In practice, this takes the form of decentralization processes and the cooperation of entities from the public, private and social sectors in the field of governance (Hausner, 2007, p. 493). The entities included in the multi-level governance strategy in Germany consist therefore of local government units (regions and cities), as well as self-governing business institutions (chambers of commerce and industry, chambers of agriculture and chambers of crafts). All of them, to an increasing extent, influence the shaping of German policy towards external entities and are important partners in creating activities on the international arena.

German regions as policy actors in international relations As former President of the Bundestag, Rita Süssmuth, stated: "The fact that our foreign policy has not only remained an exchange of communiqués and declarations, but that people have come closer to each other, we owe to a very substantial part of the town twinning" (Ziegler, 1992, p. 184). Indeed, the nation states - as subjects of international relations - remain the most important actors on the international arena, but alongside them, more and more intense contacts to pursue their own particular interests are made across national borders through non- state-actors, such as transnational corporations or non-governmental and governmental organizations. One of the most important sub-state actors, involved in the network of international contacts, are regions, understood as administrative and territorial units located in the hierarchy of the state administration just below the central level (Malarski, 2003). The reasons for such pluralization of the subjective structure of international relations include the democratization of international relations, domestication of foreign policy - meaning the blurring of boundaries between domestic and foreign policy issues, socialization of foreign policy, internationalization of many matters within the competence of regional (or local) authorities, as well as the ongoing processes of decentralization of state administration, de- concentration of public administration functions, regionalization and glocalisation (Trzcielińska-Polus, 2015, p. 119). Therefore, the foreign policy ceases to be the exclusive domain of nation state governments.

For the recent years, German scientific circles have emphasized, that the possibility to create foreign policy by the Länder and other local government units is valid, despite the ongoing dilemmas, whether - in face of the constitutionally exclusive right of the federal government to formulate foreign policy - it is allowed to conduct international cooperation on the regional and local level. The conclusion of an international agreement by the federal state requires the consent of the federal government, and Länder may conclude agreements on all matters within their own legislative competence if these matters have not been expressed and reserved for the federation's property in the German constitution. As a common rule the German government, as well as the republic as a whole, supports the paradiplomatic steps taken by the regions themselves (Athenstaedt, 2011, pp. 82-84). The states have legislative power, and hence, treaty capacity in the field of competitive legislative ability to such an extent and as long as the federation does not exercise its powers. If, after the conclusion of the agreement by the federal states, it exercises its powers, the state's competence will expire. The Länder also have the legislative capacity on matters falling exclusively on legislative competence. It is recognized that the adequate legislative delegation automatically entails the power to conclude contracts. The German states show therefore high activity in concluding international agreements. The border states - Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Saarland, Rheinland-Pfalz and Nordrhein-Westfalen - are particularly active in this dimension, although their potential to develop foreign activities is not the same due to the huge differences in terms of population and the size of economy (e.g. Bayern alone would be the ninth state of the EU according to its population). Differences also apply to the expenditure of individual Länder for matters related to foreign policy - for example, small and rather poor Sachsen- Anhalt spent for international affairs 1,6 million EUR in 2018 (rise from 0,2 million in 2009) and in the same time Bayern expended 14,7 million EUR for European Affairs and relations with foreign regions plus 4,7 million EUR for their bureaus in Berlin, Brussels, Prague and Quebec (‘Freistaat Bayern Haushaltsplan 2017/2018 Einzelplan 02 Ministerpräsident und Staatskanzlei’, n.d.; ‘Haushaltsrechnung des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt für das Haushaltsjahr 2009 Gesamtrechnung’, n.d.; Nagel, 2010, p. 131). These differences indicate, apart from the disparities in the size of the economies of individual Länder, their interest and opportunities for conducting joint international cooperation. In German literature, which analyses cross-border contacts of local government units at the substate level (cities, communes and Länder), and the involvement of local and state authorities (leaders and other representatives of communities) in this field, one can find many terms describing this field of activity. Albert Statz and Charlotte Wohlfahrt (2010) write about

"city diplomacy" (Städtediplomatie) (see also: Roters, Wolf, 2013), and Ernst-Andreas Ziegler (1992) uses the terms of "municipal or regional foreign policy" (kommunale und regionale Auβenpolitik), "foreign policy of Länder conducted alongside the governmental policy" (Nebenauβenpolitik der Länder), as well as "bypass for the foreign policy of the federal government" (By-Passing der Auβenpolitik). The term "paradiplomacy", which in the world scientific literature is most often used to describe international relations conducted by subnational governments on their own, with a view to promoting their own interests (Cornago 2010; 2013; Kuznetsov 2015), is practically unused by German researchers. Yet, at the scientific level, the scholars have put a lot of emphasis on clarification of the process of German paradiplomatic cooperation, which resulted in multifaceted theoretical approaches. In one of the first comparative studies of the international role and activities of regions in democratic federal states, Hans J. Michelmann and Panayotis Soldatos (1991) examine the phenonemon of paradiplomacy in i.e. Austria, Germany, Switzerland and the United States, and evaluate the implications of paradiplomatic activities for the conduct of foreign policy in these states. The authors explore moreover the reasons for the rise of paradiplomatic activities by non-traditional actors on the international scene. In a newer analysis Rainer J. Schweizer and Stephan C. Brunner (1998) compare the role and competences of states in Germany and Austria, considering their position and tasks within the framework of the European Union. This topic is also the main theme of Simon Bulmer, Charlie Jeffery and William E. Paterson's book on Germany's European diplomacy (2001). The authors give a comprehensive analysis of the German role in the European Community, using a novel approach that identifies German influence in the EU in terms of soft power. The analysis concentrates moreover on the creation of a milieu of multilateral cooperation in which Germany’s diplomatic interests could grow and affect the perception of the country abroad. Furthermore, Rudolf Hrbek explores the theme of role of regions and Bundesrat in the German foreign policy, stating that the topic was not on political agenda before the 1980s. The author claims, that today's integrational policy requires great commitment from the regions and the state as a whole, giving new possibilities of cooperation on the international scene (Hrbek, 2017). Also Christian Athenstaedt (2011) investigates the commitment and the numerous developments in cooperation at national and international level to prove the distribution and interlocking of competences of the various state actors, and examines the individual development policy activities of the various levels at home and abroad as well as a range of forms of interaction.

Moreover, the topic of town twinning projects is developed by Albert Statz and Charlotte Wohlfarth (2010), who assume that the idea was derived in the past from personal encounters, but now turned into business and strategic thinking model. Their analysis searches the answer on how civil and municipal political commitment has changed lately as well as to what extent the topic of sustainability represents a future perspective in urban partnership work. This aforementioned paradiplomacy is one of many elements of international cooperation of the regions. The German Länder have a great tradition of bilateral cross-border cooperation (Grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit), which has become a new phenomenon in post-war Europe, although the first international activities of regions date back to the Second German Reich (1871-1918). The formation of these new territorial units was a reaction for the functions of the state border, which were building a spatial barrier resulting from the very definition of the political frontier and its role in the country's self-reliant economy. However, as a result of the formation of political relations and the growing economic cooperation, the function of a border as a barrier became more and more onerous, especially in relation to the border regions. The boundary that crossed the continuity of socio-economic phenomena has disturbed the development of various forms of business. In particular, this situation was opposed by cross-border local communities, as it was for them that those sharing functions of the border were the most burdensome. Thus, local protests caused interest for this problem among the central authorities of neighboring states. Striving to be very cautious and to come out against often specific demands of societies, international agreements were initially concluded in border administrative units regarding various facilitations in border crossing. Positive experiences stimulated then the creation of institutions in cross-border areas, that were able to manage their own budget, which were over time called the Euroregions (Roose, 2010). Over the years, they have become an important element of domestic and foreign policy of individual European countries. According to the European Commission, more than 1/3 of EU citizens live today in Europe's border regions (Flash Eurobarometer, September 2015). The establishment of Euroregions was a significant manifestation of cross-border cooperation of many countries in Europe, however in Germany, that for the last 60 years has been building cross-border regions with its nine neighbors (Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland, Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland), the possibility of creating a peaceful and fruitful cooperation has become a central component of European policy of the Länder. Starting from the Euroregion established in the German-Dutch border (Euroregio) in 1958, their wide range was created regardless of the degree of integration of Germany with neighboring countries - along the border between Germany and the European

Communities/European Union, as well as at the borders of non-member states, as different as Poland, the Czech Republic or Switzerland. Nowadays, the legal basis of cross-border cooperation give EU regulations, international treaties and administrative arrangements with foreign partners with obligations to co-finance joint projects for personnel and administrative functions for domestic and foreign cooperation partners (Ricq, 2006; see also: Richard- Molard, 2017). German regions maintain lively contacts with partners all over the world (Goette, Gao, 2018) and are conducting intensive international relations (Nagel, 2010, p. 127). Yet, the most extensive network of connections is between Germany and France and between Germany and Poland. France is Germany's closest and crucial partner in Europe. With no other country there is such a regular and intensive coordination in all areas. German-French cooperation goes hand in hand with the close involvement of the European partner states and the existence of the term "Franco-German engine" is a proof, that the progress in the European context can be made especially if Germany and France pull together. Tight cooperation at the Franco- German governmental and parliamentary level is supplemented by coordination and joint projects at the Länder/Régions level, both anchored in Élysée Treaty from 1963 and further bilateral agreements on mutual and European cooperation (Ziebura, 1997). Important topics include measures to improve language skills and knowledge about the culture of others, as well as to increase the mobility of workers, to establish cross-border vocational training programs and to network enterprises, universities and research institutes (Bertelsmann Stiftung, Deutsch-Französisches Institut, 2018). Of great value is also the transborder cooperation with Poland, which was built in completely different political and economic conditions than the cooperation with France. After the abolition of the "Iron Curtain" and the beginning of a worldwide process of détente and the reunification of Germany, shaping the Germany's and EU's relations with the states of Central and Eastern Europe was of central importance in the reorganization of Europe. Under the new geopolitical conditions, in order to overcome the transitional difficulties associated with the arrangements of Poland's accession to the EU, it was becoming increasingly important to build neighborly, cross-border cooperation and hence launch new economic activities. This German-Polish cooperation in the economic, but also social and cultural fields has been developing progressively more in the border regions since 1990. It was put precisely in the framework of European support policy that maintains the measures to develop areas at the external borders of the EU (Gorzelak, Bachtler, Kasprzyk, 2004). Since the signing of the Neighborhood Treaty between Germany and Poland in 1991, this intensive political dialogue

11 has begun for both sides. Meanwhile, the contacts between these two countries have developed an impressive dynamic. A lively exchange and countless visits at the highest political level were an expression of the friendly partnership and good cooperation. These include at the moment the annual intergovernmental consultations with heads of government and individual ministers. A German-Polish Government Commission for Cross-Border and Interregional Cooperation was moreover established, which has since assumed the role of a major player in shaping relations between Poland and Germany (Solarz, 2009). Except for common German-French and German-Polish transborder regions, the Federal Republic develops bi- and multilateral cooperation with other neighboring states, being active in more than 40 Euroregions (Auflistung von Euroregionen, 2014). It is moreover devoted to building partnership relations with the states outside the EU borders, creating a space for economic, political and social exchange. Thus Germany searches for partners also outside the European region - in North Africa, in the Middle East, North, Central and South America, Russia, Central Asia, South East Asia and Oceania. The transfer of competences to the regions, accompanied by the decentralization of the state, opens wide fields of practical cooperation between countries and regions, complementing the intensive cooperation between the governments and the local authorities, since one of the most important features of German regions' external relations activities, observed by Michelmann (1988, p. 30) is its complementary character. Regional authorities do not challenge the primacy of the federal government in German foreign policy, but rather try to cooperate and support. Using the classification presented by Panayotis Soldatos (1990, pp. 38–40), it can be said that Germany follows a cooperative-coordinated pattern (regions are involved in international relations under a formal or informal coordination with the federal government). Germany is a very inclusive federal country in terms of multi-level governance and the federal units really participate in country’s foreign relations. Due to this fact consequences of multi-level governance and paradiplomacy are positive for the development of the nation as a whole, and lead to the rationalisation3 and democratisation4 of the decision- making process in the national foreign policy (Schiavon, 2018, p. 47).

3 Rationalisation reflects a priciple of subsidiarity, which means that the central government should delegate on the subnational level all tasks that can be effectively performed on this lower level. 4 Democratisation brings more plurality to the decision-making in foreign policy and allows better representation of various interests.

Subnational relations between Germany and China As mentioned, German regions (as well as cities) are increasingly looking for partners beyond the borders of the EU Member States. As shown by the surveys conducted by the author of this text among German federal states and cities in 2017/18 and 2021/21, China is in fact one of the most important partners from outside the European Union for sub-state cooperation. This subnational Sino-German cooperation started in the 1980ties, when nine Western German regions, apart from Saarland, established partnerships with Chinese provinces and cities. After the reunification of Germany, majority of Eastern regions follow suit. In pursuance of the data collected in 2017/18, compared with the almost parallelly conducted study of Goette and Gao (2018), all German Länder, except Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, reported official links with Chinese partners, some of them with more than one (see Table 1). However, five partnerships are not-active, meaning that there have been no bilateral activities in last two years. In practice, sometimes it may be problematic to assess if a partnership is really not-active. In case of Thüringen for instance, authorities responded in the questionnaire that cooperation with Shaanxi province is not-active, although there was a visit of Chinese officials from the province in 2015 (‘Chinesische Delegation zu Besuch in der Thüringer Landesvertretung’, 2015).

Table 1. Regional partnerships with China

Region Chinese partners Baden-Württemberg Liaoning (1982) Jiangsu (1984) Bayern Shandong (1987) Guandong (2004) Brandenburg Hebei (2015) Bremen City of Dalian (1985) Guandong (2004)* Berlin Beijing (1994) Hamburg Shanghai (1986) Hessen Jangxi (1985) Hunan (1985)* Mecklenburg- Vorpommern Niedersachsen Anhui (1984) Nordrhein-Westfalen Jiangsu (1986) Shanxi (1984) Sichuan (1988) Rheinland-Pfalz Fuijan (1989)

Saarland Hunan (2006)* Hubei (1996) Heilongjiang Sachsen-Anhalt Shanghai (2017) (2003)* Sachsen Hubei (2007) Schleswig-Holstein Zhejiang (1986) Thüringen Shaanxi (1997)* * - non-active or probably non-active partnerships (pointed out as non-active by regional officers in the survey or no information about any form of activity in last years found)

Source: own elaboration on the basis of the survey (2017/2018) among all regional offices responsible for cooperation with China, combined with Goette and Gao (2018, pp. 25–26) and followed by review of official websites of German Länder.

From 23 identified partnerships between German and Chinese regions more than a half dated back to the 1980ties. The German ones have been in the vanguard of European sub-national units seeking opportunities in China, that started to be more and more open in result of reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978. Only two partnerships were established after 2010, so the cooperation with Chinese provinces has not been launched with any relation to the project of the Belt and Road Initiative. Trying to link subnational cooperation with bilateral contacts on the national level, the year 2004 is important. In that time Sino-German relations were - as mentioned above - upgraded to the level of strategic partnership, labelled "Strategic Partnership in Global Responsibility" (Zhongping, Jing, 2014), and chancellor Gerhard Schröder has battled, unsuccessfully, to lift the European Union's arms embargo against China (Kamiński, 2015, p. 137; Malzahn, 2005). In the same year two new links between provinces and as much as 20 new partnerships between cities were established (in 2003 only one). Another 9 city-to-city partnerships were added in the year 2005 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. The number of established links between German and Chinese cities

2003 2013 2016 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2017 2018

1980s 1990s

Number of partnerships

Source: own elaboration on the basis of survey (2020/2021) compared with Goette and Gao (2018).

It suggests that the development of bilateral links at the national level fostered cooperation of the subnational actors, which means a kind of synergy with the federal policy. However, this effect was not visible in 2014 when the Sino-German partnership was upgraded to "Comprehensive Strategic Partnership" (‘Joint Declaration on the occasion of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Germany from 28 to 30 March 2014: Establishment of a comprehensive strategic partnership between Germany and China’, 2014). It may mean that the hierarchy of strategic partnerships (i.e. partnership, strategic partnership, comprehensive strategic partnership), which seems to be very important for the Chinese side, is less clear and important for Western partners. Chinese, well-known for their emphasis on formalities, use upgrading of partnership status in order to stress the importance of key diplomatic occasions (Zhongping, Jing, 2014, p. 14). The number of partnerships between cities in different German states may suggest the intensity of links with Chinese partners. It varies significantly, from 30 in Nordrhein- Westfalen to zero in Saarland. In some regions subnational contacts with China are flourishing, in others they barely exist. Searching for the explanation one have to look at the economic statistics. Clearly the greatest number of partnerships have been established in the most economically developed regions in Germany. The number of partnerships strongly corelates with the size of regional economy as well as the value of export to China (Table 2). In this first case the correlation indicator is 0,88 and in the second 0,70. Both results suggest strong correlation.

Table 2. Number of partnerships in regions, the size of regional economy and value of export to China

Number of city Export to China Region partnerships Share of GDP (2017) Nordrhein-Westfalen 30 21,20 11 187 953 Bayern 22 18,20 16 009 107 Hessen 18 8,60 3 667 175 Niedersachsen 14 8,80 4 916 000 Baden-Württemberg 11 15,10 14 746 300 Sachsen 10 3,80 5 973 661 Mecklenburg- Vorpommern 9 1,30 233 543 Rheinland-Pfalz 8 4,40 1 966 138 Bremen 3 1,00 1 320 985 Brandenburg 3 2,10 295 000* Schleswig-Holstein 2 2,90 1 100 000 Thüringen 2 1,90 894 718 Sachsen-Anhalt 2 1,90 756 000* Hamburg 1 3,60 5 900 000 Berlin 1 4,20 900 000* Saarland 0 1,10 843 262* * - latest available data from 2016

Source: own elaboration based on survey responses (2020/2021) and statistical data from German regional statistical offices.

The influence of economy on ties with China is understood particularly in the light of the fact, that economic cooperation is the most important area of German-China relations. It resonates also at subnational level. Outcomes of both surveys as well as interviews with regional officials show clearly that economy and trade dominate agenda of collaboration with China. All regions and cities which answered the questionnaire indicate economy as the area of cooperation - in survey carried out among German municipalities, 76% pointed out economy and trade in group of four most important areas.

The economisation of the dialogue might be also explained by the fact that for many German regions China is a very important trade partner and export destination. In Sachsen export to China is almost 15% of all sell overseas, in Hamburg 11%, and for Bavaria more than 8% (Table 3). This land is also the biggest exporter to China, followed by Baden-Württemberg and Nordrhein-Westfalen. Those three lands account for almost 60% of German export to China (and more than half of German GDP).

Table 3. Export to China in 2017 by regions

Region Export to China Export total Share Bayern 16 009 107 190 695 834 8,40% Baden-Württemberg 14 746 300 200 234 900 7,36% Nordrhein-Westfalen 11 187 953 190 342 885 5,88% Sachsen 5 973 661 41 257 407 14,48% Hamburg 5 900 000 53 402 818 11,05% Niedersachsen 4 916 000 87 820 891 5,60% Hessen 3 667 175 63 237 179 5,80% Rheinland-Pfalz 1 966 138 54 832 819 3,59% Bremen 1 320 985 21 238 591 6,22% Schleswig-Holstein 1 100 000 21 999 530 5,00% Berlin 900 000* 15 100 000* 5,96% Thüringen 894 718 15 157 700 5,90% Saarland 843 262* 15 467 138* 5,45% Sachsen-Anhalt 756 000* 14 830 000* 5,10% Brandenburg 295 000* 13 224 000* 2,23% Mecklenburg- Vorpommern 233 543 7 215 073 3,24% * - data from 2016

Source: own elaboration based on data provided by German regional statistical offices.

The growing importance of ties with China is evidently visible in the region of Hamburg. China is the second most important trade partner for this city with Land-status. 700 regional companies operate in China and 520 Chinese firms have offices in Hamburg (Goette, Gao, 2018, p. 55). China is by far the biggest partner for Hamburg port, responsible for about 1/3 of

17 all trade (measured in TEU), what makes this seaport the most important for German trade with China - about 50% of trade go through Hamburg. The case of Hamburg shows the crucial importance of collaboration between regional authorities and local partners. For many years the relations with China has been fostered by the regional office in Shanghai, run by the region of Hamburg, together with business partners (Chamber of commerce) as well as the Port of Hamburg and Hamburg Travel. Due to this fact, the office has stimulated not only business and trade, but also tourism, academic, educational and cultural cooperation. Education is the second most important field of interest for subnational units. 74% of municipalities declared the development of educational cooperation with Chinese partners, mainly in form of school partnerships and youth exchange programmes. They started in 2006, when governments agreed to develop this form of cooperation. Decade later it became the main topic of the first meeting of the Sino-German High-Level People-to-People Dialogue to promote and support social and cultural exchange, that was held in Beijing on 24 May 2017. Attended by several hundred people, the meeting was co-chaired by Germany’s then Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and China’s then Vice-Premier Liu Yandong (‘Deutschland und China verstärken ihren Jugendaustausch’, 2017). Similarly, the cooperation in higher education is well-developed. There are about 1200 bilateral cooperation partnerships between German and Chinese higher education institutions, 8150 Germans studied in China in 2016 and around 39500 Chinese nationals were studying at German higher education institutions in winter semester 2017/18 (‘Ausländische Studierende in Deutschland nach Herkunftsländern 2017/2018 | Statistik’, n.d.; ‘German Federal Foreign Office’, n.d.). German universities cooperate in research and teaching projects, as well as exchange students and scientist with Chinese partners. This vivid cooperation is to some extent coordinated by the central government, which in 2015 published a strategy that established a political framework for collaboration (‘China Strategy 2015–2020. Strategic Framework for Cooperation with China in Research, Science and Education’, 2015). The significance of university cooperation is rising even in peripheral regions, without big academic institutions such as Schleswig-Holstein or Sachsen-Anhalt. Daniel Günther, prime minister of Schleswig-Holstein, going to China as his first international visit pointed out academic cooperation as most important area of cooperation beside trade relations (Günther, 2018). Also the official from Sachsen-Anhalt stressed the increase in number of Chinese students: We currently have 350 students at the Otto von Guericke University in Magdeburg, but we expect more. Considering that there are about 14.000 students at the university in total, the group is anyway large. In

18 addition, there are nearly 1.000 vocational school teachers, vocational school directors, managers and members of management who attend seminars here in Magdeburg on school evaluation, school management, digitization, operations management, etc. (‘Interview with Head of International Office for Economic Development, City of Magdeburg’, 2018).

The third most important area is art and culture. Half of the subnational units in Germany declared they cooperate with China in this field. Many of them see it as ‘catalysator and basis’ for the development of economic ties. Similarly to sport and education, cultural cooperation is much better developed on local rather than regional level, because of the fact that cities have more competences in these areas. The list of the most significant sectors of cooperation suggests also the key local partners for subnational units. In case of Germany, the model of the "golden triangle" or the "triple helix" (‘Interview with the Eurocities analyst’, 2019) is visible and seems to be important for successful cooperation with China. In this model academia, business and local/regional government build a complex network of relationships in which they dynamically collaborate. One of the experts, working as a facilitator of city-to-city links with China, said: And at times, they ‘take the role of the other’ by adopting new, non-traditional roles; for example, companies become educators, the university becomes more entrepreneurial and the local government a business facilitator. In the triple helix model, knowledge does not only flow from university lab to the business (the traditional ‘linear’ model of innovation): there are multiple links, flows and backflows between multiple partners that make up a complex tissue of public, private and knowledge actors. (‘Interview with the Eurocities analyst’, 2019).

Engagement of different actors brings a lot of benefits. Firstly, it increases the number of cooperation opportunities in frames of a partnership and make it more attractive for both sides. Secondly, it gives flexibility and effective use of resources. For example, some degree of joint representation can be created and when a local government cannot take part in the meeting, it may be the local university or chamber of commerce that represent interests of the whole city/region. Thirdly, the broader platform of stakeholders makes the cooperation more sustainable. Politicians tend to limit the cooperation to the official visits and exchange the letter of intents, while business partners and universities want rather to implement concrete projects (Kontinakis, Liu, Huo, Li, Jinjing, 2019). As for the topics of official contacts with Chinese partners, it is visible that although economy dominates the agenda of bilateral talks, environmental issues and climate change are almost equally important. At this point it is worth to stress that subnational cooperation with China is also an element of the German foreign policy. Cooperating in the area of climate-friendly and

19 sustainable urban development has been an important area of bilateral contacts for many years. Against this backdrop the Sino-German urbanisation partnership was launched in 2013 by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. This political project aims at supporting cooperation between German and Chinese cities, through various instruments such as organising annual Mayors Summit, study visits etc.5. Environmental dialogue with Chinese subnational units can be seen as the practical implementation of the national policy goals.

Conclusions The conducted research leads to following conclusions. Over the last several decades, German regions and cities have started to play an important role in the multi-level governance system. Their significance in the network of connections began to increase from the 1970ties. They started to enlarge their role in the process of shaping domestic policy. At the same time, their involvement in the process of creating international relations was also growing. Thanks to the possibilities offered by the German federal system, individual Länder conduct multidimensional policy, also in an international context, and seek partners among regions neighbouring with Germany but also located much further, e.g. in Asia. An increasingly vital partner in the globalized world is China, which is nowadays one of the most important partners for the Federal Republic of Germany in economic terms, but the close cooperation of both states at the national level supports the activity of individual Länder and cities as well. According to the results of the analysis all but one German states (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern is the exception) in the last 40 years have established a partnership with at least one Chinese province. Contrary to the situation in many other countries in Europe, subnational links with China were established in Germany well before the Belt and Road Initiative has been launched in 2013. More than a half of partnerships between German and Chinese regions dated back to the 1980ties. Beside regions, also local communities - particularly cities, develop links with Chinese counterparts. There are more than 130 local actors cooperating with China. The data show a strong correlation between share of GDP, the level of exports to China and the number of partnerships established by the individual Länder. In the regions, which have an extensive network of links with the PRC's provinces, there are usually factories producing cars, machines, electronic equipment as well as medical and technical equipment, that are the main

5 More information on the official website of the initiative: https://www.sustainable-urbanisation.org/en

20 export goods of Germany. For many regions China is a very important trade partner accounting for even more than 10% of export. The strongest trade links with China have Bayern, Baden-Württemberg and Nordrhein-Westfalen. They comprise almost 60% of German export to China. Without a doubt economy remains the key area of collaboration but issues like education, higher education, urbanization and renewable energy sources play an increasingly important role. Länder are gradually more interested in cooperation in the field of education and the reception of Chinese students. Year by year, the number of Chinese students increases at the German universities and local authorities are involved in acquiring new ones. The growing intensification of contacts is possible thanks to tripartite involvement of local authorities, universities and business. This so-called "golden triangle" forms the basis for the construction of comprehensive relations, enabling the identification of cooperation fields, the possibility of political support for their development and the creation of a theoretical and practical framework. The school sector in which German and Chinese students are educated together also allows for the building of consensus, a common experience as well as guanxi - invaluable in contacts with the Chinese side. The rising dynamic of dialogue with Chinese subnational units creates opportunities for the national government in Berlin as well as for the EU. Regions and cities could help with practical implementation of the national as well as European policy goals towards China in low policy areas such as environment or people-to-people dialogue. German government does communicate with regions, trying to formally and informally coordinate their activities. However the question to what extent the federal government uses subnational actors as instruments of its foreign policy, remains unanswered. In case of the EU, no activities have been found aiming at making apolitical use of the growing network of subnational partnerships with China.

Reference list:

Athenstaedt, Ch. (2011). Die Kompetenzverteilung in der deutschen staatlichen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit Zur Zulässigkeit entwicklungspolitischer Maßnahmen deutscher Bundesländer und Kommunen. Herbert Utz Verlag. Auflistung von Euroregionen und ähnlichen Institutionen in der Europäischen Union (2014). Retrieved from http://www.euregio.nrw.de/german/links.html. Auswärtiges Amt. Beziehungen zu Deutschland (2018). Retrieved from https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/aussenpolitik/laender/china-node/-/200472. Balcerek-Kosiarz M., Multi-level governance in local governments in the Federal Republic of Germany, “Środkowoeuropejskie Studia Polityczne” No 3, 2019. Bertelsmann Stiftung, Deutsch-Französisches Institut (ed.) (2018). Städtepartnerschaften - den europäischen Bürgersinn stärken. Eine empirische Studie. Gütersloh. Bevir M. (2011), SAGE Handbook of Governance, SAGE, London. Bulmer, S., Jeffery, Ch., & Paterson, W. E. (2001). Germany's European Diplomacy: Shaping the Regional Milieu. Manchester University Press. Bundesgesetzblatt (2014). Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany in the revised version published in the Federal Law Gazette Part III, classification number 100-1, as last amended by Article 1 of the Act of 23 December 2014. Federal Law Gazette, p. 2438 (translated by Prof. Ch. Tomuschat, Prof. D. P. Currie). Bundesratsdrucksache (1992). Stellungnahme des Bundesrates zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zu dem Abkommen vom 2. Mai 1992 über den Europäischen Wirtschaftsraum (EWR- Abkommen), Beschluss Nr. 368, 10. Juli 1992. China Strategy 2015–2020. Strategic Framework for Cooperation with China in Research, Science and Education. (2015, December). German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Retrieved from https://www.bmbf.de/pub/China_Strategy_Longversion.pdf Chinesische Delegation zu Besuch in der Thüringer Landesvertretung. (2015, June 11). Retrieved 25 March 2021, from https://thueringen.dgb.de/++co++8e2ec914-103c-11e5-b7c3- 52540023ef1a. Cornago N., On the normalization of sub-state diplomacy, “The Hague Journal of Diplomacy” 2010, Vol. 5 (1-2), p. 11-36. Cornago N., Plural diplomacies: Normative predicaments and functional imperatives, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2013. Destatis (2021), Die Volksrepublik China ist erneut Deutschlands wichtigster Handelspartner. Retrieved 1 June 2021, from https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Wirtschaft/Aussenhandel/handelspartner-jahr.html. Detterbeck, K., Renzsch, W., Schieren, S. (ed.) (2009). Föderalismus in Deutschland. München. Deutschland und China verstärken ihren Jugendaustausch. (2017, May 26). Retrieved 30 January 2021, from https://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/aktuelles/alle-meldungen/deutschland-und- china-verstaerken-ihren-jugendaustausch/116478. Flash Eurobarometer (September 2015). Cross-Border Cooperation in the EU Report. Retrieved 24 May 2021, from

http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDet ail/instruments/FLASH/surveyKy/1565. Freistaat Bayern Haushaltsplan 2017/2018 Einzelplan 02 Ministerpräsident und Staatskanzlei. (n.d.). Bayerische Staatregierung. Retrieved 20 May 2021, from http://www.stmfh.bayern.de/haushalt/staatshaushalt_2017/haushaltsplan/. Giessen L., Böcher M. (2009), Rural Governance, forestry, and the promotion of local knowledge. The case of the German rural development programme “Active Regions”, “Small- scale Forestry”, vol. 8, pp. 211–230. Goette, A., Gao Q. (2018). Deutsch-Chinesische Kommunalbeziehungen (No. 19). Bonn: Servicestelle Kommunen in der Einen Welt. Gorzelak, G., Bachtler, J., Kasprzyk, M. (ed.) (2004). Współpraca transgraniczna Unii Europejskiej. Doświadczenia Polski i Niemiec. Warszawa. Haushaltsrechnung des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt für das Haushaltsjahr 2009 Gesamtrechnung. (n.d.). Sachsen-Anhalt Staatregierung. Retrieved 2 June 2021, from https://mf.sachsen- anhalt.de/finanzen/haushalt/haushalt-archiv/doppelhaushalt-20082009/doppelhaushalt- 20082009/. Hausner J. (2007), Od idealnej biurokracji do zarządzania publicznego, in: Wymiary życia społecznego, ed. M. Morody, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa, pp. 493–515. Hrbek, R. (2017). Die Rolle der Länder und des Bundesrates in der deutschen Europapolitik. In K. Böttger, M. Jopp (Ed.), Handbuch zur deutschen Europapolitik. Baden-Baden, pp. 130-147. Interview with Head of International Office for Economic Development, City of Magdeburg. (2018, May 22). Interview with the Eurocities analyst. (2019, January 30). Jeffery, C. (1999). Recasting German Federalism: The Legacies of Unification. London. Jeffery, C. (2007). Towards a New Understanding of Multi-Level Governance in Germany? The Federalism Reform Debate and European Integration. "Politische Vierteljahresschrift", No. 48, pp. 17-27. Joint Declaration on the occasion of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to Germany from 28 to 30 March 2014: Establishment of a comprehensive strategic partnership between Germany and China. (2014, March 28). Retrieved 22 May 2021, from https://archiv.bundesregierung.de/archiv-de/meta/startseite/joint-declaration-between- germany-and-china-460244. Kamiński, T. (2015). Sypiając ze smokiem. Polityka Unii Europejskiej wobec Chin. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego. Retrieved 23 May 2021, from https://wydawnictwo.uni.lodz.pl/produkt/sypiajac-ze-smokiem/. Kontinakis, N., Liu, Y., Huo, B., Li, Y., Jinjing, Z. (2019). Cooperation Plans and Guidelines. URBAN-EU-CHINA Innovation Platform on Sustainable Urbanisation. Kovziridze, T. (2008). Hierarchy and Interdependence in Multi-level Structures. Foreign and European Relations of Belgian, German and Austrian Federated Entities. Brussels, pp. 168-169. Kuznetsov A. S., Theory and Practice of Paradiplomacy. Subnational governments in international affairs, London, New York, Routledge 2015.

Leonardy, U. (1999). The institutional structures of German federalism. London (electronic ed.). Retrieved 22 May 2021, from http://library.fes.de/fulltext/bueros/london/00538007.htm#E10E15. Lepsius O. (2002), Geld als Schutzgut der Eigentumsgarantie, “Juristen Zeitung”, vol. 757, pp. 313–321. Malarski, S. (2003). Regiony i euroregiony, zagadnienia organizacyjne, prawne, administracyjne. Opole, p. 100. Malzahn, C. C. (2005, April 1). Schroeder’s China Policy: Getting Cozy with the Dragon. Spiegel Online. Retrieved 29 May 2021 from http://www.spiegel.de/international/schroeder-s- china-policy-getting-cozy-with-the-dragon-a-349133.html. Michelmann, H. J. (1988). Länder Paradiplomacy. German Politics & Society, (15), 22–31. Michelmann, H. J., Soldatos, P. (1991). Federalism and International Relations. The Role of Subnational Units. Clarendon Press Publication. Mutius A. von, Henneke H.-G. (1985), Kommunale Finanzausstattung und Verfassungsrecht. Dargestellt am Beispiel der nordrhein-westfälischen Gemeindefinanzierungsgesetze 1983 und 1984, Recinger, Siegburg. Nagel, K.-J. (2010). Foreign Policy: the Case of the German Lander. In F. Requejo (Ed.), Foreign policy of constituent units at the beginning of 21st century (pp. 121–141). Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya, Institut d’Estudis Autonòmics. Plöhn, J., Steffani, W. (1994). Bund und Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In J. Hartmann (ed.) (1994). Handbuch der deutschen Bundesländer (2nd ed.). Bonn. Richard-Molard, G. (2017). Die Rechtsgrundlagen des grenzüberschreitenden Kooperationsrechts zwischen Gebietskörperschaften, LIT Verlag. Ricq, Ch. (2006). Handbook of transfrontier co-operation. Council of Europe. Roose, J. (2010). Vergesellschaftung an Europas Binnengrenzen. Eine vergleichende Studie zu den Bedingungen sozialer Integration. Wiesbaden. Roters, J., Wolf, F. (July 2013). Städtekooperation und Städtediplomatie im Nahen Osten am Beispiel der Stadt Köln. "Zeitschrift für Auβen- und Sicherheitspolitik", Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 331–343. Scharpf F. (2014), Zapiski o teorii zarządzania wielopoziomowego w Europie, “Zarządzanie Publiczne”, no. 4, pp. 76–99. Schiavon, J. A. (2018). Comparative Paradiplomacy (1 edition). Abingdon, Oxon; New York, Routledge. Schweizer, R. J., Brunner, S. C. (1998). Die Mitwirkung der Bundesländer an EU-Vorhaben in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und in Österreich: ein Modell für die Mitwirkung der Kantone in der Aussenpolitik. Bern. Solarz, P. (2009). Euroregiony pogranicza niemiecko-francuskiego i niemiecko-polskiego w procesie integracji europejskiej. Warszawa, p. 9-10. Soldatos, P. (1990). An Explanatory Framework for the Study of Federal States as Foreign- policy Actors. In H. J. Michelmann, P. Soldatos (Eds.), Federalism and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Statz, A., Wohlfarth, Ch. (2010). Kommunale Partnerschaften und Netzwerke. Ein Beitrag zu einer transnationalen Politik der Nachhaltigkeit. Berlin.

Steinmeier, F.-W., (2018). Bundespräsident Frank-Walter Steinmeier beim Besuch der Sichuan-Universität am 7. Dezember 2018 in Chengdu/China. Retrieved from http://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Reden/DE/Frank-Walter- Steinmeier/Reden/2018/12/181207-Staatsbesuch-China- Uni.html;jsessionid=4E3E3F9634A6A0178F243A6246820120.2_cid371. Sturm, R., (2013). Demokratie als "Leitgedanke" des deutschen Föderalismus. "Informationen zur politischen Bildung", No. 318, p. 3-5. Strumińska-Kutra M. (2012), Rola badań społecznych w refleksyjnych procesach metarządzenia. Zarys perspektywy teoretycznej i metodologicznej, “Zarządzanie Publiczne”, no. 4, pp. 17–29. Sześciło D. (2012), Niemiecki Steuerungsmodell. Nowe zarządzanie publiczne w samorządzie lokalnym, “Samorząd Terytorialny”, no. 1–2, pp. 42–52. Trzcielińska-Polus, A. (2015). Samorządowy wymiar polityki zagranicznej regionów (na przykładzie Śląska Opolskiego). "Pogranicze. Polish Borderland Studies", Vol. 3, No. 2, p. 119. Wübbeke, J., Meissner, M., Zenglein, M. J., Ives, J., Conrad, B. (2016). Made in China 2025: The making of a high-tech superpower and consequences for industrial countries. Mercator Institute of China Studies. December, No. 2. Retrieved from https://www.merics.org/index.php/en/papers-on-china/made-china-2025, 20.05.2018. Zhongping, F., Jing, H. (2014). China’s strategic partnership diplomacy: engaging with a changing world (ESPO Working Papers No. 8). European Strategic Partnerships Observatory. Ziebura, G. (1997). Die deutsch-französischen Beziehungen seit 1945. Mythen und Realitäten. Stuttgart. Ziegler E.-A. (1992). Kommunale Außenpolitik. In idem (ed.), Freunde reden Tacheles. Der Beitrag der Städte zur Außenpolitik am Beispiel Deutschland-Israel. Wuppertal.